Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小,
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levels
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.814 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68) | 0.732 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.109 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.154 | -0.430, 0.174 | 0.407 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.014 | 0.134 | -0.277, 0.249 | 0.917 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.258 | 0.194 | -0.123, 0.639 | 0.186 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.269 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.381 | -0.827, 0.667 | 0.834 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.229 | 0.254 | -0.726, 0.268 | 0.368 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.01 | 0.369 | 0.283, 1.73 | 0.007 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.504 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.712 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.638 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.720 | 0.409 | -0.082, 1.52 | 0.080 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.14 | 0.597 | -0.029, 2.31 | 0.057 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.185 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.261 | -0.480, 0.544 | 0.903 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.033 | 0.176 | -0.313, 0.378 | 0.853 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.276 | 0.257 | -0.227, 0.780 | 0.283 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.291 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.411 | -0.462, 1.15 | 0.404 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.381 | 0.262 | -0.133, 0.896 | 0.148 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.439 | 0.382 | -0.311, 1.19 | 0.253 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.372 | -0.545, 0.913 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.346 | 0.214 | -0.074, 0.766 | 0.108 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.281 | 0.312 | -0.332, 0.893 | 0.370 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.215 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.304 | -0.987, 0.203 | 0.198 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.043 | 0.217 | -0.382, 0.468 | 0.843 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.797 | 0.315 | 0.179, 1.41 | 0.012 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.877 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.240 | -3.72, 1.14 | 0.300 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.51 | 0.670 | -2.83, -0.202 | 0.025 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.201 | 0.977 | -1.71, 2.12 | 0.837 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.408 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.577 | -1.14, 1.12 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.390 | 0.347 | -0.291, 1.07 | 0.263 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.215 | 0.506 | -0.777, 1.21 | 0.672 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.515 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.729 | -0.589, 2.27 | 0.250 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.385 | 0.429 | -0.456, 1.23 | 0.370 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.168 | 0.625 | -1.06, 1.39 | 0.789 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.643 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.909 | -0.414, 3.15 | 0.134 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.20 | 0.495 | 0.229, 2.17 | 0.016 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.156 | 0.722 | -1.57, 1.26 | 0.829 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.335 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.474 | -0.576, 1.28 | 0.458 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.337 | 0.265 | -0.183, 0.857 | 0.205 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.001 | 0.387 | -0.759, 0.757 | 0.999 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.542 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.767 | -1.50, 1.50 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.793 | 0.441 | -0.073, 1.66 | 0.074 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.236 | 0.643 | -1.03, 1.50 | 0.714 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.628 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.888 | -1.42, 2.06 | 0.719 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.08 | 0.480 | 0.139, 2.02 | 0.026 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.248 | 0.700 | -1.62, 1.12 | 0.724 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.390 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.551 | -0.320, 1.84 | 0.169 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.751 | 0.352 | 0.062, 1.44 | 0.034 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.491 | 0.512 | -0.513, 1.49 | 0.339 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.251 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.354 | 0.050, 1.44 | 0.037 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.110 | 0.213 | -0.527, 0.307 | 0.606 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.430 | 0.310 | -0.177, 1.04 | 0.167 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.285 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.403 | -0.398, 1.18 | 0.332 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.344 | 0.237 | -0.121, 0.808 | 0.149 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.325 | 0.345 | -0.351, 1.00 | 0.347 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.295 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.417 | -0.121, 1.51 | 0.096 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.307 | 0.227 | -0.138, 0.753 | 0.177 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.214 | 0.331 | -0.435, 0.863 | 0.520 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.540 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.763 | -0.408, 2.58 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.664 | 0.396 | -0.112, 1.44 | 0.095 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.526 | 0.577 | -0.606, 1.66 | 0.363 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.818 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.156 | -3.48, 1.05 | 0.294 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.827 | 0.633 | -2.07, 0.413 | 0.193 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.43 | 0.922 | -3.24, 0.377 | 0.123 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.447 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.633 | -0.232, 2.25 | 0.112 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.370 | 0.346 | -0.308, 1.05 | 0.286 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.526 | 0.504 | -0.462, 1.51 | 0.298 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.363 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.514 | 0.001, 2.01 | 0.051 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.549 | 0.308 | -0.054, 1.15 | 0.076 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.339 | 0.448 | -0.540, 1.22 | 0.451 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.772 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.091 | -0.123, 4.15 | 0.066 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.917 | 0.598 | -0.255, 2.09 | 0.127 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.861 | 0.872 | -0.848, 2.57 | 0.325 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.140 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.198 | -0.461, 0.317 | 0.717 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.229 | 0.166 | -0.554, 0.096 | 0.169 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.330 | 0.241 | -0.141, 0.802 | 0.171 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.310 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.439 | -0.140, 1.58 | 0.102 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.655 | 0.321 | 0.025, 1.28 | 0.043 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.708 | 0.467 | -1.62, 0.207 | 0.131 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.377 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.534 | -0.582, 1.51 | 0.385 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.616 | 0.343 | -0.057, 1.29 | 0.074 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.317 | 0.500 | -0.663, 1.30 | 0.526 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.618 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.874 | -0.530, 2.90 | 0.177 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.28 | 0.578 | 0.149, 2.41 | 0.028 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.410 | 0.841 | -2.06, 1.24 | 0.627 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.403 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.569 | -0.588, 1.64 | 0.355 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.729 | 0.336 | 0.071, 1.39 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.066 | 0.490 | -0.894, 1.03 | 0.893 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.224 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.316 | -0.628, 0.612 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.215 | 0.242 | -0.260, 0.690 | 0.376 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.509 | 0.352 | -0.181, 1.20 | 0.150 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.276 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.390 | -0.852, 0.676 | 0.822 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.484 | 0.281 | -1.04, 0.067 | 0.087 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.471 | 0.409 | -1.27, 0.331 | 0.251 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.325 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.459 | -0.676, 1.12 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.404 | 0.260 | -0.912, 0.105 | 0.121 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.618 | 0.378 | -1.36, 0.123 | 0.104 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.332 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.470 | -1.00, 0.841 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.555 | 0.266 | -1.08, -0.033 | 0.038 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.188 | 0.388 | -0.949, 0.572 | 0.628 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.333 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.471 | -0.516, 1.33 | 0.387 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.364 | 0.264 | -0.881, 0.152 | 0.169 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.620 | 0.384 | -1.37, 0.133 | 0.108 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.934 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.320 | -2.04, 3.14 | 0.676 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.32 | 0.668 | -2.63, -0.007 | 0.050 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.37 | 0.975 | -3.28, 0.542 | 0.162 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.37) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(428) = 29.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(428) = -0.83, p = 0.407; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.25], t(428) = -0.10, p = 0.916; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.64], t(428) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(428) = 66.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.67], t(428) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.27], t(428) = -0.90, p = 0.367; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [0.28, 1.73], t(428) = 2.73, p = 0.006; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [0.10, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.68], t(428) = 58.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(428) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.52], t(428) = 1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.31], t(428) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-5.10e-03, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.99], t(428) = 62.95, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(428) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.38], t(428) = 0.18, p = 0.853; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.78], t(428) = 1.08, p = 0.282; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.61, 17.75], t(428) = 59.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(428) = 0.84, p = 0.403; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.90], t(428) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.19], t(428) = 1.15, p = 0.251; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(428) = 49.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.91], t(428) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77], t(428) = 1.61, p = 0.106; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.89], t(428) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(428) = 46.36, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(428) = -1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.47], t(428) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [0.18, 1.41], t(428) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [0.07, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.56e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.78, 33.21], t(428) = 35.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.14], t(428) = -1.04, p = 0.299; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-2.83, -0.20], t(428) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.12], t(428) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.86], t(428) = 54.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(428) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.07], t(428) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.21], t(428) = 0.42, p = 0.671; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(428) = 47.54, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(428) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.23], t(428) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.39], t(428) = 0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.40, 20.92], t(428) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(428) = 1.50, p = 0.132; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [0.23, 2.17], t(428) = 2.42, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.26], t(428) = -0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.30], t(428) = 31.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(428) = 0.74, p = 0.457; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.86], t(428) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.78e-04, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.76], t(428) = -1.75e-03, p = 0.999; Std. beta = -1.82e-04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(428) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25e-13, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.50], t(428) = 1.63e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = -4.44e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.66], t(428) = 1.80, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.50], t(428) = 0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.78], t(428) = 34.34, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.06], t(428) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [0.14, 2.02], t(428) = 2.25, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.62, 1.12], t(428) = -0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.41, 16.94], t(428) = 41.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(428) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [0.06, 1.44], t(428) = 2.14, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.01, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.49], t(428) = 0.96, p = 0.338; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(428) = 52.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(428) = 2.10, p = 0.036; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.31], t(428) = -0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.04], t(428) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(428) = 58.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(428) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.81], t(428) = 1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.00], t(428) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.99], t(428) = 42.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(428) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.75], t(428) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.86], t(428) = 0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(428) = 54.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(428) = 1.43, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.44], t(428) = 1.68, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.66], t(428) = 0.91, p = 0.362; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.28, 29.48], t(428) = 34.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.48, 1.05], t(428) = -1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.07, 0.41], t(428) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-3.24, 0.38], t(428) = -1.55, p = 0.121; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.96, 14.72], t(428) = 30.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.25], t(428) = 1.59, p = 0.111; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.05], t(428) = 1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.51], t(428) = 1.04, p = 0.297; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(428) = 42.20, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [1.11e-03, 2.01], t(428) = 1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [2.70e-04, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.15], t(428) = 1.78, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.22], t(428) = 0.76, p = 0.450; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.68], t(428) = 37.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.12, 4.15], t(428) = 1.85, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.25, 2.09], t(428) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.85, 2.57], t(428) = 0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.53, 13.07], t(428) = 91.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.32], t(428) = -0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.10], t(428) = -1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.80], t(428) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.75, 14.97], t(428) = 46.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(428) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [0.02, 1.28], t(428) = 2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [7.14e-03, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.21], t(428) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.06])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(428) = 34.85, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(428) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.29], t(428) = 1.79, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.66, 1.30], t(428) = 0.63, p = 0.525; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(428) = 44.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.90], t(428) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.15, 2.41], t(428) = 2.22, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.02, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.24], t(428) = -0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(428) = 46.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.64], t(428) = 0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [0.07, 1.39], t(428) = 2.17, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.02, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.03], t(428) = 0.13, p = 0.893; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(428) = 64.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(428) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.69], t(428) = 0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.20], t(428) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(428) = 42.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(428) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.07], t(428) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.33], t(428) = -1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(428) = 32.03, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.12], t(428) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.10], t(428) = -1.56, p = 0.120; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.12], t(428) = -1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(428) = 30.63, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(428) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.08, -0.03], t(428) = -2.08, p = 0.037; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.29, -8.87e-03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.57], t(428) = -0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(428) = 26.14, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.33], t(428) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.15], t(428) = -1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.13], t(428) = -1.61, p = 0.107; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(428) = 31.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(428) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-2.63, -7.31e-03], t(428) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.25, -7.02e-04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-3.28, 0.54], t(428) = -1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,382.998 | 1,395.217 | -688.499 | 1,376.998 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,385.937 | 1,410.376 | -686.969 | 1,373.937 | 3.060 | 3 | 0.382 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,104.288 | 2,116.508 | -1,049.144 | 2,098.288 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,100.538 | 2,124.977 | -1,044.269 | 2,088.538 | 9.750 | 3 | 0.021 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,613.524 | 2,625.743 | -1,303.762 | 2,607.524 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,597.870 | 2,622.308 | -1,292.935 | 2,585.870 | 21.654 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,774.040 | 1,786.260 | -884.020 | 1,768.040 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,776.951 | 1,801.389 | -882.475 | 1,764.951 | 3.090 | 3 | 0.378 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,160.294 | 2,172.514 | -1,077.147 | 2,154.294 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,154.052 | 2,178.491 | -1,071.026 | 2,142.052 | 12.242 | 3 | 0.007 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,039.354 | 2,051.573 | -1,016.677 | 2,033.354 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,034.721 | 2,059.159 | -1,011.361 | 2,022.721 | 10.633 | 3 | 0.014 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,930.908 | 1,943.127 | -962.454 | 1,924.908 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,923.481 | 1,947.919 | -955.740 | 1,911.481 | 13.428 | 3 | 0.004 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,062.415 | 3,074.635 | -1,528.208 | 3,056.415 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,059.018 | 3,083.456 | -1,523.509 | 3,047.018 | 9.398 | 3 | 0.024 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,427.863 | 2,440.083 | -1,210.932 | 2,421.863 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,429.886 | 2,454.324 | -1,208.943 | 2,417.886 | 3.977 | 3 | 0.264 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,623.439 | 2,635.659 | -1,308.720 | 2,617.439 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,625.493 | 2,649.931 | -1,306.746 | 2,613.493 | 3.947 | 3 | 0.267 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,797.945 | 2,810.164 | -1,395.972 | 2,791.945 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,792.241 | 2,816.679 | -1,390.121 | 2,780.241 | 11.704 | 3 | 0.008 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,232.889 | 2,245.108 | -1,113.444 | 2,226.889 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,235.293 | 2,259.731 | -1,111.646 | 2,223.293 | 3.596 | 3 | 0.309 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,664.481 | 2,676.700 | -1,329.240 | 2,658.481 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,662.580 | 2,687.018 | -1,325.290 | 2,650.580 | 7.901 | 3 | 0.048 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,770.587 | 2,782.806 | -1,382.294 | 2,764.587 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,768.947 | 2,793.385 | -1,378.474 | 2,756.947 | 7.640 | 3 | 0.054 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,420.467 | 2,432.686 | -1,207.233 | 2,414.467 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,408.085 | 2,432.523 | -1,198.042 | 2,396.085 | 18.382 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 2,009.077 | 2,021.296 | -1,001.538 | 2,003.077 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 2,005.502 | 2,029.940 | -996.751 | 1,993.502 | 9.575 | 3 | 0.023 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,115.492 | 2,127.711 | -1,054.746 | 2,109.492 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,110.730 | 2,135.168 | -1,049.365 | 2,098.730 | 10.762 | 3 | 0.013 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,119.246 | 2,131.465 | -1,056.623 | 2,113.246 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,115.137 | 2,139.575 | -1,051.569 | 2,103.137 | 10.109 | 3 | 0.018 |
els | null | 3 | 2,631.741 | 2,643.960 | -1,312.870 | 2,625.741 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,624.212 | 2,648.650 | -1,306.106 | 2,612.212 | 13.529 | 3 | 0.004 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 3,011.555 | 3,023.774 | -1,502.778 | 3,005.555 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 3,002.390 | 3,026.829 | -1,495.195 | 2,990.390 | 15.165 | 3 | 0.002 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,483.282 | 2,495.501 | -1,238.641 | 2,477.282 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,478.437 | 2,502.876 | -1,233.219 | 2,466.437 | 10.845 | 3 | 0.013 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,336.953 | 2,349.172 | -1,165.477 | 2,330.953 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,327.315 | 2,351.754 | -1,157.658 | 2,315.315 | 15.638 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs | null | 3 | 2,961.468 | 2,973.687 | -1,477.734 | 2,955.468 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 2,952.628 | 2,977.066 | -1,470.314 | 2,940.628 | 14.840 | 3 | 0.002 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,591.533 | 1,603.752 | -792.766 | 1,585.533 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,595.147 | 1,619.585 | -791.573 | 1,583.147 | 2.386 | 3 | 0.496 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,250.059 | 2,262.278 | -1,122.029 | 2,244.059 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,250.724 | 2,275.162 | -1,119.362 | 2,238.724 | 5.335 | 3 | 0.149 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,387.397 | 2,399.616 | -1,190.699 | 2,381.397 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,382.543 | 2,406.982 | -1,185.272 | 2,370.543 | 10.854 | 3 | 0.013 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,821.465 | 2,833.684 | -1,407.732 | 2,815.465 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,819.126 | 2,843.564 | -1,403.563 | 2,807.126 | 8.339 | 3 | 0.040 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,416.503 | 2,428.722 | -1,205.252 | 2,410.503 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,412.011 | 2,436.449 | -1,200.006 | 2,400.011 | 10.492 | 3 | 0.015 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 1,981.903 | 1,994.122 | -987.951 | 1,975.903 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 1,978.798 | 2,003.236 | -983.399 | 1,966.798 | 9.105 | 3 | 0.028 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,151.386 | 2,163.605 | -1,072.693 | 2,145.386 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,143.891 | 2,168.329 | -1,065.945 | 2,131.891 | 13.495 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,221.175 | 2,233.394 | -1,107.587 | 2,215.175 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,211.289 | 2,235.727 | -1,099.644 | 2,199.289 | 15.886 | 3 | 0.001 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,237.261 | 2,249.481 | -1,115.631 | 2,231.261 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,232.020 | 2,256.458 | -1,110.010 | 2,220.020 | 11.242 | 3 | 0.010 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,238.857 | 2,251.076 | -1,116.429 | 2,232.857 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,230.562 | 2,255.001 | -1,109.281 | 2,218.562 | 14.295 | 3 | 0.003 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,103.636 | 3,115.855 | -1,548.818 | 3,097.636 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,091.854 | 3,116.293 | -1,539.927 | 3,079.854 | 17.781 | 3 | 0.000 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.22 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.22 | 0.407 | 0.132 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 98 | 3.19 ± 1.20 | 0.014 | 86 | 3.32 ± 1.20 | -0.251 | 0.464 | -0.134 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.01 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.01 | 0.834 | 0.044 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 98 | 17.65 ± 2.88 | 0.126 | 86 | 18.58 ± 2.82 | -0.429 | 0.028 | -0.512 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.63 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.63 | 0.637 | -0.116 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 98 | 30.41 ± 5.30 | -0.248 | 86 | 31.89 ± 5.14 | -0.640 | 0.056 | -0.508 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.06 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.06 | 0.903 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 98 | 11.66 ± 1.98 | -0.026 | 86 | 11.96 ± 1.94 | -0.245 | 0.286 | -0.245 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.25 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.25 | 0.404 | -0.184 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 98 | 17.57 ± 3.09 | -0.204 | 86 | 18.35 ± 3.02 | -0.438 | 0.084 | -0.418 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.621 | -0.121 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 98 | 13.49 ± 2.77 | -0.227 | 86 | 13.95 ± 2.68 | -0.411 | 0.249 | -0.305 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.40 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.40 | 0.197 | 0.253 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 98 | 9.99 ± 2.31 | -0.028 | 86 | 10.40 ± 2.27 | -0.541 | 0.232 | -0.261 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.81 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.81 | 0.300 | 0.271 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 98 | 29.98 ± 9.17 | 0.319 | 86 | 28.89 ± 8.87 | 0.277 | 0.415 | 0.229 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.56 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.56 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 98 | 22.45 ± 4.31 | -0.158 | 86 | 22.66 ± 4.19 | -0.245 | 0.742 | -0.084 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.76 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.76 | 0.250 | -0.275 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 98 | 24.89 ± 5.43 | -0.126 | 86 | 25.90 ± 5.28 | -0.181 | 0.203 | -0.330 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.19 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.19 | 0.134 | -0.390 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 98 | 20.86 ± 6.73 | -0.342 | 86 | 22.08 ± 6.51 | -0.297 | 0.216 | -0.345 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.74 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.74 | 0.458 | -0.187 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 98 | 10.99 ± 3.51 | -0.179 | 86 | 11.34 ± 3.40 | -0.179 | 0.492 | -0.187 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.06 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.06 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 98 | 15.92 ± 5.70 | -0.253 | 86 | 16.16 ± 5.54 | -0.328 | 0.776 | -0.075 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.02 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.02 | 0.719 | -0.094 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 98 | 22.63 ± 6.56 | -0.317 | 86 | 22.70 ± 6.35 | -0.244 | 0.940 | -0.021 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.36 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.36 | 0.169 | -0.303 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 98 | 16.93 ± 4.14 | -0.300 | 86 | 18.18 ± 4.04 | -0.495 | 0.039 | -0.499 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.80 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.80 | 0.037 | -0.492 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 98 | 13.06 ± 2.65 | 0.073 | 86 | 14.23 ± 2.57 | -0.212 | 0.002 | -0.776 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.19 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.19 | 0.332 | -0.233 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 98 | 17.10 ± 3.00 | -0.204 | 86 | 17.82 ± 2.92 | -0.397 | 0.102 | -0.426 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.29 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.29 | 0.096 | -0.432 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 98 | 12.72 ± 3.08 | -0.191 | 86 | 13.63 ± 2.98 | -0.324 | 0.043 | -0.565 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.03 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.03 | 0.155 | -0.388 | ||
els | 2nd | 98 | 29.83 ± 5.62 | -0.237 | 86 | 31.45 ± 5.43 | -0.424 | 0.048 | -0.576 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.14 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.14 | 0.294 | 0.271 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 98 | 27.05 ± 8.56 | 0.184 | 86 | 24.41 ± 8.28 | 0.503 | 0.034 | 0.590 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 5.00 | 125 | 14.85 ± 5.00 | 0.112 | -0.411 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 98 | 14.21 ± 4.68 | -0.151 | 86 | 15.74 ± 4.53 | -0.365 | 0.025 | -0.625 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.06 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.06 | 0.051 | -0.461 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 98 | 15.88 ± 3.84 | -0.251 | 86 | 17.22 ± 3.73 | -0.406 | 0.016 | -0.615 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.63 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.63 | 0.066 | -0.475 | ||
shs | 2nd | 98 | 30.09 ± 8.08 | -0.216 | 86 | 32.96 ± 7.82 | -0.419 | 0.015 | -0.678 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.57 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.57 | 0.717 | 0.060 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 98 | 12.57 ± 1.54 | 0.191 | 86 | 12.83 ± 1.53 | -0.084 | 0.255 | -0.215 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.47 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.47 | 0.102 | -0.312 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 98 | 15.01 ± 3.35 | -0.284 | 86 | 15.03 ± 3.30 | 0.023 | 0.981 | -0.005 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.22 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.22 | 0.385 | -0.190 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 98 | 13.77 ± 4.02 | -0.252 | 86 | 14.55 ± 3.92 | -0.381 | 0.183 | -0.319 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.91 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.91 | 0.177 | -0.287 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 98 | 28.79 ± 6.60 | -0.311 | 86 | 29.57 ± 6.45 | -0.211 | 0.422 | -0.188 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.50 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.50 | 0.355 | -0.221 | ||
empower | 2nd | 98 | 19.58 ± 4.24 | -0.305 | 86 | 20.17 ± 4.13 | -0.333 | 0.337 | -0.249 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.50 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.50 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 98 | 14.58 ± 2.43 | -0.123 | 86 | 15.08 ± 2.40 | -0.416 | 0.161 | -0.288 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.08 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.08 | 0.822 | 0.044 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 98 | 11.31 ± 2.97 | 0.240 | 86 | 10.75 ± 2.92 | 0.473 | 0.200 | 0.277 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.63 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.63 | 0.626 | -0.122 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 98 | 10.00 ± 3.41 | 0.219 | 86 | 9.60 ± 3.30 | 0.555 | 0.427 | 0.214 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.71 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.71 | 0.865 | 0.042 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 98 | 9.62 ± 3.49 | 0.294 | 86 | 9.35 ± 3.38 | 0.393 | 0.597 | 0.142 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.73 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.73 | 0.387 | -0.218 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 98 | 8.35 ± 3.49 | 0.195 | 86 | 8.14 ± 3.39 | 0.526 | 0.677 | 0.113 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.44 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.44 | 0.676 | -0.117 | ||
sss | 2nd | 98 | 27.97 ± 9.70 | 0.278 | 86 | 27.15 ± 9.36 | 0.568 | 0.562 | 0.173 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(387.43) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.18)
2st
t(421.34) = 0.73, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.48)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(324.67) = -0.21, p = 0.834, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(387.67) = 2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.75)
ras_confidence
1st
t(302.70) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.74)
2st
t(363.53) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.99)
ras_willingness
1st
t(327.26) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.55)
2st
t(389.93) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.88)
ras_goal
1st
t(317.47) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.15)
2st
t(380.77) = 1.73, p = 0.084, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.67)
ras_reliance
1st
t(303.07) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)
2st
t(364.03) = 1.15, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.26)
ras_domination
1st
t(337.94) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.21)
2st
t(398.25) = 1.20, p = 0.232, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.07)
symptom
1st
t(295.53) = -1.04, p = 0.300, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.73 to 1.15)
2st
t(353.42) = -0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.70 to 1.53)
slof_work
1st
t(308.78) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.13)
2st
t(371.17) = 0.33, p = 0.742, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.44)
slof_relationship
1st
t(305.75) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(367.47) = 1.27, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.56)
satisfaction
1st
t(296.40) = 1.50, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.16)
2st
t(354.71) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.71 to 3.13)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(299.56) = 0.74, p = 0.458, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.28)
2st
t(359.25) = 0.69, p = 0.492, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.36)
mhc_social
1st
t(302.86) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(363.74) = 0.28, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.87)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(295.64) = 0.36, p = 0.719, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(353.58) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.80 to 1.95)
resilisnce
1st
t(317.40) = 1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)
2st
t(380.70) = 2.07, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.06 to 2.44)
social_provision
1st
t(308.42) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(370.75) = 3.05, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.42 to 1.93)
els_value_living
1st
t(305.57) = 0.97, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)
2st
t(367.24) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(296.52) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.52)
2st
t(354.89) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.79)
els
1st
t(291.45) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)
2st
t(347.07) = 1.98, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.01 to 3.22)
social_connect
1st
t(296.94) = -1.05, p = 0.294, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.49 to 1.06)
2st
t(355.50) = -2.13, p = 0.034, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-5.09 to -0.20)
shs_agency
1st
t(296.83) = 1.59, p = 0.112, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.25)
2st
t(355.34) = 2.26, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.87)
shs_pathway
1st
t(308.10) = 1.96, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.02)
2st
t(370.37) = 2.41, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.44)
shs
1st
t(297.12) = 1.85, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.13 to 4.16)
2st
t(355.77) = 2.45, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.57 to 5.18)
esteem
1st
t(376.66) = -0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.32)
2st
t(417.90) = 1.14, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.70)
mlq_search
1st
t(343.32) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(401.87) = 0.02, p = 0.981, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.98)
mlq_presence
1st
t(318.81) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)
2st
t(382.12) = 1.33, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.93)
mlq
1st
t(323.27) = 1.35, p = 0.177, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.90)
2st
t(386.39) = 0.80, p = 0.422, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.12 to 2.67)
empower
1st
t(306.14) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.65)
2st
t(367.96) = 0.96, p = 0.337, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.81)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(353.86) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)
2st
t(408.01) = 1.41, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.20)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(340.11) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)
2st
t(399.75) = -1.28, p = 0.200, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.30)
sss_affective
1st
t(300.66) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(360.78) = -0.80, p = 0.427, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.58)
sss_behavior
1st
t(300.93) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.84)
2st
t(361.16) = -0.53, p = 0.597, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.73)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(299.39) = 0.87, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(359.01) = -0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.79)
sss
1st
t(289.15) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)
2st
t(343.30) = -0.58, p = 0.562, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.58 to 1.95)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(220.56) = 1.73, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.52)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(203.63) = 2.90, p = 0.008, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.31)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(197.77) = 4.28, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (1.00 to 2.72)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(204.31) = 1.65, p = 0.199, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.68)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(201.72) = 2.95, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.37)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(197.87) = 2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.18 to 1.08)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(207.12) = 3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.29)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(195.82) = -1.85, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.72 to 0.09)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(199.41) = 1.64, p = 0.205, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.33)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(198.59) = 1.21, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.45)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(196.06) = 1.98, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.08)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(196.92) = 1.20, p = 0.467, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.89)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(197.81) = 2.20, p = 0.059, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.10 to 1.95)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(195.85) = 1.63, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.84)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(201.71) = 3.33, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.51 to 1.98)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(199.31) = 1.42, p = 0.315, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.77)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(198.54) = 2.66, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.16)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(196.09) = 2.16, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.00)
els
1st vs 2st
t(194.70) = 2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.36 to 2.02)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(196.20) = -3.36, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-3.58 to -0.93)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(196.17) = 2.44, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.62)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(199.23) = 2.72, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.53)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(196.25) = 2.80, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.53 to 3.03)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(217.48) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.24 to 0.45)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(208.53) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.62)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(202.08) = 2.57, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.65)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(203.26) = 1.42, p = 0.312, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.08)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(198.70) = 2.23, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.50)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(211.31) = 2.83, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.23)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(207.69) = -3.21, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.54 to -0.37)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(197.22) = -3.71, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-1.57 to -0.48)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(197.29) = -2.63, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.30 to -0.19)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(196.87) = -3.52, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.54 to -0.43)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(194.06) = -3.78, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-4.09 to -1.29)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(209.09) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.28 to 0.25)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(197.02) = -0.90, p = 0.736, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.27)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(192.93) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.53)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(197.49) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.38)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(195.68) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.90)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(193.00) = 1.61, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.08 to 0.77)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(199.47) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.38 to 0.47)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(191.57) = -2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.84 to -0.19)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(194.07) = 1.12, p = 0.527, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.08)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(193.50) = 0.90, p = 0.741, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.23)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(191.74) = 2.42, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.18)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(192.33) = 1.27, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.19 to 0.86)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(192.96) = 1.79, p = 0.148, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.66)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(191.59) = 2.25, p = 0.051, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.03)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(195.67) = 2.14, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.45)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(194.00) = -0.52, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.31)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(193.47) = 1.45, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.81)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(191.76) = 1.35, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.14 to 0.76)
els
1st vs 2st
t(190.79) = 1.68, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.45)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(191.84) = -1.31, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.08 to 0.42)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(191.82) = 1.07, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.05)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(193.94) = 1.78, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.16)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(191.87) = 1.53, p = 0.254, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.10)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(206.86) = -1.38, p = 0.339, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.10)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(200.47) = 2.04, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.29)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(195.93) = 1.79, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.29)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(196.76) = 2.22, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.14 to 2.42)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(193.57) = 2.17, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.39)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(202.43) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.69)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(199.87) = -1.72, p = 0.174, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.07)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(192.54) = -1.56, p = 0.243, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.11)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(192.60) = -2.08, p = 0.077, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.08 to -0.03)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(192.30) = -1.38, p = 0.337, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.16)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(190.35) = -1.97, p = 0.101, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.64 to 0.00)